URBACT Summer University 2013 - Labs - 21st Century Public Services - Session 4

URBACT LABSESSION 4

Final Check

LAB 4 – FINAL CHECK

URBACT LAB 1 SESSION 4 2

1. Feedback from the ULSG @ work 3

2. Checking coherence of the LAP

3. Thinking ahead about monitoring

4. Introducing the URBACT self-assessment tool

5. Explaining the “Dragons den”















COHERENCE OF LAP

• WHY check?

• WHEN check?

• HOW to check…


COHERENCE OF LAP


COHERENCE OF LAP


1.

2.

Actions

Problems – Needs - Opportunities

3.Results

Check: Results correspond to problem?

Check: Action supports achievement of objective?

Check: Action contributes to achievement of results?

Check: Result contributes to solve problem/address stakeholder needs?

360 DEGREE COHERENCE OF LAP


Check Results Actions

Sustainable and integrated

social are there …? are there …?

environmental are there …? are there …?

economic are there …? are there …?

cross-sectoralcross-thematic

are there …? are there …?

COHERENCE OF LAP1. Example where coherence was improved after checking

Intended results: Expansion of space capacity for mayor functions

• Housing by 10.000 m²

• Hotels by 5.000 m²

• Social infrastructure by 3.000 m²

Conflict: Through checking it was realized that only 15.000 m² are available.

Solution: Definition of a process to coordinate which function at which location is to be realized best and monitoring that the intended results per function are not exceeded.


COHERENCE OF LAP

Exercise: 30 minutes

In ULSG groups (staying in this lab room) check yourAction Table and portfolio using the 2 tools.

Deliverable: adjust plan if necessary









PROJECT MONITORING


GENERAL OBJECTIVES OF MONITORING

1. Observing and analysing

2. Reviewing the performance- output achievement

3. Providing information to the general public and giving advisory services

4. Supporting evidence based decision making and taking corrective actions


EXAMPLE OF MONITORING: HERO


Monitoring

1. Data collection

2. Data analysis

3. Discussion of results4. Monitoring report

5. Update CHIMP

• by responsible institutions according to your work/organisation structure

• based on the target setting• Draft and communication of

monitoring report

• Monitoring meeting to discuss monitoring report (reasons for developments, actions to be taken, etc.)

• Communication of final monitoring and action report

• Taking corrective actions

THE URBACT SELF ASSESSMENT TOOLS









THE URBACT SELF ASSESSMENT TOOLS: ULSGULSG

Main Headings:

Frequency of meetingsOrganisation of ULSGDiversity of membersParticipation of residents, users, business…Empowerment of users, citizensOther voicesInvolvement of managing AuthoritiesLeadershipAnimation and structure of meetings


THE URBACT SELF ASSESSMENT TOOL: ULSGULSG Example of questions for self assessment:

Frequency of meetingsscore 1: LSG has few meetings (e.g. One per year)score 3: Regular meetings, no info on participationscore 5: Regular and frequent meetings with high level of participation, links to meeting notes

Diversity of membersscore 1: ULSG dominated by public officials from municipalityscore 3: ULSG mostly public officials but other agencies involvedscore 5: Involvement of all three sectors, (public, private, civil society)

Animation and structure of meetingsscore 1: All meetings are organised in traditional 'committee' formatsscore 3: some efforts to introduce new formatsscore 5: Innovative techniques have been deployed for meeting animation and shared decision making


THE URBACT SELF ASSESSMENT TOOL: LAP


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1Process and governance

Content of action plan

Integrated approachFinance and project planning

EU and URBACT added value








PITCHING THE LOCAL ACTION PLANS IN LAB 5


THE PRESENTATION

• Each ULSG @work group selects 1-2 people to present the LAP in 5 minutes

• The presenters can use 3 pp slides, flipchart, other media

• The presentation focuses on the action table developed in Lab 3, and makes use of/reference to all portfolio materials

• The presentation will be delivered to a panel of 4 representatives (1 from each of the other ULSG @work groups) and the Deputy Mayor in front of all Lab members


THE LAP PORTFOLIO

• Lab 1 Problem Tree

Validated Stakeholder List

• Lab 2 Expected Results

Evidence Enhancement Table

• Lab 3 Action table

• Lab 4 Presentation


CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS(SCORE EACH CRITERION FROM 1 TO 5)


Criteria Score

1. Coherence between problem, actions and results

2. Addressing the deputy mayor’s challenge

3. Feasibility

4. Integrated approach

5. Quality of presentation

Total

THE PANEL• Each ULSG @work group selects one panel member

(different to the LAP presenters)

• Each panel member is given a role (managing authorities, private enterprises/funders, local residents...)

• They listen to the presentation (5 min)

• They ask questions (5 min) from the perspective of their particular role

• Questions can be asked from the floor (whole Lab group)


ULSG@WORK 4

• Time

• Objective: Prepare pitch

• Tasks: to prepare to pitch

• Tool: Portfolio+ 3 slides (written) + ????

• Deliverables:

• Dragons Den pitch

• 1 slide Unique Selling Proposition at lunchtime



Business

URBACT Summer University 2013 - Labs - 21st Century Public Services - Session 4